Premium
Variant parameter values—as defined by the C hicago C riteria—produced by ManoScan and a new system with Unisensor catheter
Author(s) -
Kuribayashi S.,
Iwakiri K.,
Kawada A.,
Kawami N.,
Hoshino S.,
Takenouchi N.,
Hosaka H.,
Shimoyama Y.,
Kawamura O.,
Yamada M.,
Kusano M.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
neurogastroenterology and motility
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.489
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1365-2982
pISSN - 1350-1925
DOI - 10.1111/nmo.12446
Subject(s) - high resolution manometry , motility , catheter , esophageal motility disorder , normal values , cardiology , medicine , chemistry , nuclear medicine , surgery , esophagus , biology , achalasia , genetics
Background Recently reported normal values for esophageal motility obtained by high‐resolution manometry ( HRM ) using a system with a Unisensor catheter were significantly different from those obtained by the ManoScan ® , which could result in a wrong diagnosis. To clarify whether these differences were due to system or subject differences, we compared the manometric parameter values between ManoScan and a new system with a Unisensor catheter (Starlet) in the same subjects. Methods A total of 103 volunteers without any symptoms related to esophageal motility disorders were recruited. Esophageal HRM was performed using both the ManoScan and the Starlet in all subjects. Data from the ManoScan were analyzed using ManoView, and data from the Starlet were analyzed by a program with e‐sleeve function. Integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, contractile front velocity ( CFV ), intrabolus pressure, and distal latency were calculated by both analyzing programs, and the values of these parameters were compared between the two systems by a signed rank test. Key Results Data from a total of 97 participants were analyzed. The values of all parameters, except CFV , measured by the Starlet were significantly higher than those obtained by the ManoScan ( p < 0.01). Conclusions & Inferences Both systems can measure esophageal motility appropriately; nevertheless, we confirmed that the two systems showed different values of the parameters defined by the C hicago criteria. These differences should be recognized to evaluate esophageal motility precisely.